Simultaneous lateral bone augmentation and implant placement using a particulated synthetic bone substitute around chronic peri‐implant dehiscence defects in dogs

Aim To determine the histological outcomes when using a highly porous synthetic bone substitute and a cross‐linked collagen membrane for lateral bone augmentation of peri‐implant dehiscence defects. Methods In eight dogs, three treatment groups were randomly allocated at each peri‐implant dehiscence...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of clinical periodontology 2017-11, Vol.44 (11), p.1172-1180
Main Authors: Jung, Ui‐Won, Cha, Jae‐Kook, Vignoletti, Fabio, Nuñez, Javier, Sanz, Javier, Sanz, Mariano
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Alveolar Ridge Augmentation - methods
animal model
Animals
Bone Substitutes - therapeutic use
Collagen
Dehiscence
dental implant
Dental Implantation, Endosseous - methods
Dental implants
Dentistry
Dogs
Female
guided bone regeneration
Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal - methods
Male
Shoulder
Surgical Wound Dehiscence - surgery
synthetic bone substitute
Tooth Extraction - adverse effects
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Aim To determine the histological outcomes when using a highly porous synthetic bone substitute and a cross‐linked collagen membrane for lateral bone augmentation of peri‐implant dehiscence defects. Methods In eight dogs, three treatment groups were randomly allocated at each peri‐implant dehiscence defect (mean height × depth = 3 × 1 mm) as follows: (i) synthetic bone substitute covered by a cross‐linked collagen membrane (test group), (ii) deproteinized bovine bone mineral covered by a natural collagen membrane (positive control), and (iii) no treatment (negative control). Two healing periods (8 and 16 weeks) were applied. Results The differences in healing outcomes between the test and positive control groups were not significant at 8 weeks. Horizontal bone augmentation 2 mm below the implant shoulder was significantly greater in the test group (1.22 ± 0.53 mm) than in the positive and negative controls (0.42 ± 0.51 and 0.36 ± 0.50 mm, respectively) at 16 weeks. Similarly, the augmented tissue thickness at 0, 1, and 2 mm apical to the implant shoulder was significantly greater in the test group than in the positive control group. Conclusion The test group showed significantly better histological outcomes for lateral bone augmentation and tissue thickness at 16 weeks compared to both the positive and negative control groups.
ISSN:0303-6979
1600-051X
DOI:10.1111/jcpe.12802